I have been following the story of the Utah ED nurse's arrest with some interest since the video first broke. Amid all the outrage and anti-cop sentiment, it's hard to learn any facts, but some have come out, and it's interesting to me.

It's interesting to me because as the Medical Director of a busy Emergency Department here in Texas, I most emphatically don't want anything like this to happen in my ED. The fact that it happened ANYwhere is a testament to what I call the supremacy of Bossiness and the failure of Leadership.

Here's my short summary of the case. If I'm substantively wrong in any point, please feel free to correct me and I'll change the OP:

1. Professional driver, driving a semi, gets hit by another vehicle; CDL laws apply here, and he must submit a blood sample by law. By signing his CDL license, he has given consent to this in advance for the rest of his professional driving life.
2. Professional cop, who is also a trained forensic phlebotomist, is dispatched to the ED to collect the blood sample that is required by law.
3. Profesional nurse, citing hospital policy, and acting as a "patient advocate" tells cop he can't take the blood sample.

So far, it's pretty straightforward. But then:

4. Cop calls his supervisor, who tells him he MUST get the blood sample NOW, based on his understanding of state and federal law governing MVC's involving CDL drivers.
5. Nurse calls her hospital administrator, who tells her she MUST NOT allow him to do so without a warrant, following hospital policy (which may or may not be in compliance with EMTALA, HIPAA, and other healthcare law).
6. Cop supervisor tells cop he must arrest the nurse and then get the blood sample.
7. Cop arrests nurse.
8. Video gets posted on YouTube and the Entire World Loses Its Mind.

Does anyone else see the big problem here? Does anyone else notice that the two people who were insisting that nobody back down were not even present? How the feck do you justify putting your people into that position without being there in person to back it up?

Look, I know that tempers can run hot in emergency situations. I work in that kind of environment every day. People get short-tempered, and say and do things that they would never do if there was time to talk it over and make a rational decision based on the best information at hand. And when people DO take the time for a time-out, and come to a mutually agreeable solution, everybody wins.

I have been in the position of the supervisor in this deal. On several occasions my phone has blown up with calls from my charge nurse, my ER doc on duty, the hospital administration, the nursing supervisor, and God knows who else, and ALL of them are blowing a gasket over some situation or other that has escalated out of hand really, really fast.

My response in each case has been as follows:

1. Tell everyone to back away from the situation, and
2. I drive in to the ED immediately.

Each time I have done this, the situation has either completely or partially resolved itself by the time I arrive. My job then has been to speak to all the parties individually, then make a judgment based on all the information. At which point all the principals breathe a sigh of relief, and say, "Fine, that's good with me."

Every time.

But in this situation, I see two professionals, a nurse and a cop, put in a situation where their respective supervisors are instructing them to do the exact opposite of what I have found to be the only way to get a just and equitable solution to a dangerous conflict. The hospital supervisor isn't a lawyer, nor a law enforcement expert. The police supervisor isn't a lawyer, nor a healthcare law expert. But neither one admits that they don't know the whole story, and then they insist that the frontline cop and nurse just bull ahead.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I think that nurse and that cop need to have a sit-down with a professional mediator to figure out how what they both did was partly right and partly wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if they both carry a grudge for the rest of their lives. But it wasn't their fault. It was their supervisors' fault this turned into a first class Charlie Foxtrot.

But the supervisors on both sides should have their asses fired with extreme prejudice. Because in a situation that called for leadership, they BOTH failed miserably. They both decided they had to be a BOSS instead of being a LEADER.

Imagine the difference in this scenario if both supervisors had said, "Hold on, don't do anything, I'll be right there," and then got in their cars and sped to the hospital. Imagine the supervisors taking their people aside privately and getting the facts and the history of the conflict. Imagine the supervisors then sitting down in the coffee room and deciding how to solve the issue. Maybe they would have remained at a standoff, or maybe they would have reached an agreeable compromise. Maybe they'd have to get a judge to sign a warrant, or maybe they'd have just said, "Feck it, this is too trivial a problem for us to get in a snit over, let's all go get a beer."

I guaran-fecking-tee you that would not have made it on to YouTube and Facebook. But it would have been the right thing to do.

Leadership is real. Leadership is necessary. And leadership was absolutely absent in that Utah ED that day.

Thanks for the War and Peace. Now we know.

Bravo.

Another way to put it is that people should be trained to be solution oriented instead of procedure oriented.

Administrative types often get so wrapped up in rules that they can't imagine they don't apply to every situation, or that there are exceptions they don't have a clue about. But, by Jove, they are going to follow the rules! (all the way off the cliff).

Amen.

PS Got a bunch of dove yesterday.

Lack of leadership has been a problem for awhile now.

We see that in every facet of life. Some areas worse than others.

Doc: Thanks for an insider's look at the situation. LEADERSHIIT is definitely too prevalent in today's society while leadership is most definitely in short supply.

So good to read something that makes some sense of this.
'Thanks Doc. your posts are always among the best I read on the net.

Great post! A few things.....

Much of the blowback isn't "anti-cop" sentiment. It is anti bullying idiot sentiment.

The officer knew he didn't have standing to get the sample. In fact he is asked by the second officer why they just don't get a warrant and he responds that they don't have probable cause.

While the leadership was sorely lacking on both sides, the ER administrator was directly in communication with the officer. Maybe he was in route? I dunno. Same can't be said for the other side.

When it comes down to it, the fault lies at the feet of the parties directly involved. They are both adults well capable of being responsible for their own actions and emotions.

The fella trying to get the sample simply lost his patience and violated the rights of the nurse.

Amen, Doc!

Listening to that Commander talk to the nurse as she was in the police car was like listening to someone lecturing a child and not caring how contemptuous they were being. He certainly exacerbated the entire thing.

Our biggest problem is communication. Too often we don't slow down to try to fully understand what the circumstances are and we don't communicate our thoughts and intentions fully or clearly enough. We don't try to see anything from another person's perspective, it's all about "me, me, me" and "my point of view".

The time it took for this to all transpire could have seen the Cop get a telephonic search warrant as soon as he found resistance to the blood draw.

He should have never taken this situation personally. You could see the distress in the Nurse's face as she was trying to explain why it shouldn't be done without a warrant.

Too many people are promoted into leadership positions without any leadership training or even potential.

Ed

Excellent post, Doc, and this ^^^^ applies in too many situations where bosses think they know it all and "this is the way it has to be G-d-it!" Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

There is no CDL carve out from the 4th Amendment. Violate the terms of your CDL? ....lose your CDL, however that is administrative in nature and not criminal procedure. However he was unconscious an incapable of consent....therefore the very easy work around is to get a warrant. The nurse was 100% in the right and the cop was wrong. And he should have known better than her that he was wrong. Need the blood now? Get the warrant.

DocRocket,

No matter how you post it, long or short, the cop messed up. If he wanted to arrest someone he should have arrested the person on the other end of the phone call. There was no need to brutalize the poor employee (nurse) who was trying to be a good subordinate. The cop should be do time for assault and battery and false imprisonment.

If what you say about the law is correct about consent because the driver had the CDL then the cop could have sighted the correct law with the person on the phone. He didn't and choked.

You're welcome. Now you do.

The "carve out" is when you sign for that CDL

After working for a short time in hospital security, it's obvious that hospitals do not care about what is legal or acceptable to comply with HIPAA or EMTALA. They take a very blind attitude that EVERYTHING IS A VIOLATION no matter who makes the request or the grounds (law) that allow them to make the request. I think it's because no one in medicine has every really read the HIPAA laws and does not know what is allowable. So they take an attitude that every request is not allowable and it will only get them sued if they agree with an LEO request.

The attorney's for the medical facility also take on a similar attitude which adds to the confusion. These are the people who are supposed to know and keep the hospital or medical facility advised about these kinds of issues. I'm not sure what the solution should be to fix this.


I don't know anything about the LEO making the request and I don't know anything about the nurse. But, I'm pretty sure no one at the Hospital has ever trained the supervisors what is allowable and what is not when it comes to an LEO request. My security supervisor took the time to read the law and had to train his supervisors who were not LEO or security about what is legal when a LEO made a request, but he could never train the whole hospital staff due to logistics and the numbers of staff that need trained. The hospital was not interested enough to make an attempt to train it's staff about what was legal or illegal when there was an LEO request.

Yes, I call this a leadership failure as well.
kwg

Readonly and Ringman....

I am not saying the cop was correct. I am also not saying the nurse was correct. Both of 'em got their backs up and didn't want to back down. They BOTH did the right thing by calling their supervisors, and at that point it was the supervisors' job to sort it out. BOTH the cop and nurse should have stopped right there, and waited for the supe's to get there to sort it out. But the supervisors didn't show up, so the nurse and cop couldn't de-escalate, which is how the whole thing turned into a YouTube schittshow.

Leadership could have saved the situation. But leadership was abysmally lacking.

And the stupid f*cks comment about all sorts of shiet, yet again, that wasn't addressed in the first place by the OP.

Awesome. Wish I could've been there! Still cleaning up after Harvey here.

Then get a warrant based on that "carve out".
They did not because they could not.

I disagree, they could have gotten a warrant but the draw would no longer be timely. If there was alcohol in the blood, it would have been greatly diminished or gone by the time the warrant would have been signed. Since no one from the medical side was involved in the actual requesting and receiving the warrant, there was NO guarantee it would have been honored.

The answer could have been asking the County Medical Examiner to do the bold draw from their supplies, in effect taking the hospital out of the equation. But, that's a County Attorney SOP and not the LEO's or the hospitals decision.

My guess is there will be a lot of SOP's changed after this incident on both sides.
kwg

The nurse was placed in a no-win situation. One authority figure was telling her to do one thing. (her boss) Another authority figure was telling her to do something else. (the cop)

She was presented with 2 choices. Lose her job or go to jail.

The cop needs another vocation for his unwillingness to confront the nurses supervisor instead of the nurse.

Great post. Both players called for supervisory assistance; leadership and supervision was absent when needed.
Bob

Please post the relavent Idaho statue that says that signing their CDL authorizes LE to draw blood 24/7 without PC.

Why would Idaho have anything to do with a federal statute?

I think it would be wonderful if you would look up the Idaho statute. But since this case happened in Utah, I'm not sure it's relevant.

In any case, this isn't a state law issue. CDL's are under Federal jurisdiction. You can read the Sesame Street version here:
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulatio...are-required-and-when-does-testing-occur

Thanks, 700!

There are others who do not agree with you, though...

Well said, Dutch. I have a term for those types: corporate pukes. I realize that's not a strong enough term for what I really think of them, though...

I believe the fed regs only state you have to comply with local statutes re testing.

Any person who holds a CLP or CDL or is required to hold a CLP or CDL is considered to have consented to such testing as is required by any State or jurisdiction in the enforcement of item (4) of Table 1 to § 383.51 of this subpart and § 392.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. Consent is implied by driving a commercial motor vehicle.

What are utahs laws regarding such? They require any accident victim to submit to a search?

There is a 7-1 Supreme Court decision directly on point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birchfield_v._North_Dakota

All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given their implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that both breath tests and blood tests constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that requiring breath tests is constitutional without a search warrant, however, requiring more intrusive blood tests involving piercing the skin is not, as the goal of traffic safety can be obtained by less invasive means.[1] Specifically addressing implied consent laws, the court in the Birchfield opinion stated that while their "prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws" that "there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads" and "that motorists could be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are 'reasonable' in that they have a 'nexus' to the privilege of driving". [2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

What it means is that Implied Consent does not include blood withdrawal, pure plain and simple.

Spin it anyway you wish, but the Supreme Law of the Land says drawing blood without a warrant or "actual" not "implied" consent is a violation if the 4th amendment

The Federal statue requires the EMPLOYER to send the driver involved in a significant accident to be drug tested, and refusal is deemed a violation. Violation results in automatic suspension of your CDL. Cops have NADA to do with it. In any case, local cops must be certified before they can enforce FMCSA regulations. I very much doubt this local copper was. Every employer of a USDOT regulated company is required to undergo a 2 hr training program that outlines these rules.

I have no clue what the local and state statues are in this case, but they are the only ones that apply HERE.

Great post, Doc. Bossiness vs leadership: the best descriptive terms I’ve heard on this topic.

We meet bossy people who abuse their power once in awhile in any position that gives them power to tell others that they must do something or can't do something. I recall the gloating joy in a ferry worker's face who refused to let me get on a ferry because they had just instituted a new half hour rule for boarding. I suspect that bossy people gravitate to such positions of usually minor authority but perhaps the position promotes the trait. I wish that there was some way to weed out applicants with this trait, and fire those who develop it. It has zero to do with safety or doing whatever job they do. One abusive, lying jerk TSA officer in Philadelphia tends to make me forget dozens of other good ones and a few in Seattle who went out of their way to serve my ailing wife as well as protect.

Something the nurse pointed out was that the policy she showed the cops was the protocol that (she understood) the police had worked out with the hospital and had agreed to follow.

The cop looked like his default next step is to ratchet up the conflict when anyone disagrees with him.

A lot of good points made.

My take is that while the hospital administrator is not lawyer, the nurse had everything needed to show the responding officers that the ED was on their game. She calmly produced documentation and clearly articulated the hospital's responsibility.

The tenured detective quickly turned his wrath onto the nurse, knowing that his case was shaky at best (no probable cause for a warrant) and upon consent from his boss crossed the line arresting someone that was helping to find a solution. There were no exigent circumstances with the truck diver fleeing the hospital

After most of the drama was over the detective told another officer that he would be bringing all of the homeless patients to that hospital via his night job as an ambulance driver.

Detective and his supervisor phuqued up big time and need to suffer the consequences.

Wasn't part of this issue was the fact the driver was unconscious. I know this changes some issues but it does not relieve the timeliness issue. In other words, some time limits had to be met. I agree, the nurse supervisor needed to be in the room and if necessary, the officers supervisor needed to be there as well. Two bullheaded people meeting in the same room with no way out created this $hitstorm.

There is no such thing as a quick search warrant and there is no such thing as a judge who is close and handy to sign one. This means that the supervisors need to know what the rules are and be able to recite them at a moments notice. If not, why are they a supervisor ??

kwg

Bullschidt...

I know for a fact that many times my wife would draw a legal etoh at the same time she would draw the hospital's blood sample. And this was while working grave shift at 0300.

Steve (and Dutch)... I ain't a lawyer, and neither are you, nor were the supervisors in this case. (I am a registered CDL Medical Examiner, though, for what that's worth in this discussion... my notes say the CDL holder's consent to a blood draw is not implied, but explicit. Let the lawyers figure that out.)

Regardless: the fact that a bunch of us here can get into a quarrel about whether this was right or wrong underscores my central point in the OP: that when the issues aren't clear and/or are in contention, it's the responsibility of the LEADERS to cut through the rancor and arguments and arrive at a solution that doesn't require people doing foolish things at the scene.

Doesn't matter about timeliness, it only matters what the law says and the law as per the United States Supreme court says that no blood without PC, an arrest, a warrant, or actual consent.

They also ruled that Implied Consent does not include drawing blood, period.

<sigh> Yes, indeed. Getting bogged down in minutiae, wandering off-topic, and thread-hijacking are SOP on the 24HCF these days. Sometimes I wonder why I bother...

Along the lines of the leadership issue

a little background about the environment

Current SLC mayor Ms. Bukispi is a lesbian and very active in the LGBT (that movement). Previous staff was asked to resign an then she hires back etc. (yes I know not uncommon)

The "progressive" movement in the SLC area has moved large portions of business to the south end of the valley. ex. Silicon Slopes, NSA. This has significantly reduced SLC tax base as most of the labor force commutes in.

Former SLC sheriff, Winder steps down moves to Moab. New sheriff Ms. Garcia is close friends with mayor, and yet to receive/earn "leadership respect" from leo community.

Nurse publicly accepted mayors apology. This limits her avenues.

Thanks for the post, a little more clarity to the situation.

However, LEO should always defer to the "innocent until proven guilty" parameters within the constitution. Regardless of what the admin. people pushed, or what laws pertain to CDL requirements, the cop on site had the option/time to get a warrant, its not like the truck driver was going anywhere. One of the main concepts within the constitution is the idea of the creation of a "victim", and not the welfare rat, BLM "victim". I'm talking about a person who has been damaged, either physically, financially etc.

In this instance, the nurse caused no victim by refusing the collection of blood, regardless of what the law states. The police officer on the other hand caused a victim by arresting the nurse, denying her freedom. He arrested her based on an administrative conflict, not some charge of damaging/creating a victim. Here in lies one the biggest problems that has created a total misunderstanding within our population as to what rights are, why the constitution was written the way it was, and how law enforcement/gov. takes power away from the people.

Off topic but just to be clear

Dillion Taylor was white, Officer Cruz was non-white.

Well said Doc. I'm glad I retired shortly after HIPAA went into effect. There was general confusion, at that time, as to what the medical community was or was not allowed to do by HIPAA. Seems the confusion has yet to clear up.

When was the last time you filled out a search warrant or invoked implied consent ?? It's not everything, just damned near it. The State legislature writes and states the Code, the LEO's enforce it, as per the intent of the Legislature to the best of their ability. Judges are supposed to respect that process of the elected officials (representatives of the people) and the Constitution, just like the Officers. The State Code, the accident and the unconscious condition is the PC. This only leave the timeliness. This officer failed to recognize the human factor (untrained nurse) and blew the "first impressions are important" and it turned ugly. The leadership (both sides) and the attorneys of the hospital failed to recognize the law and the timeliness of the process. You see the end result. You can bet things will change in the near future. Good or bad, it will change.
kwg

Bosses see Rules/Regulations as the final word, leaders see them as general guidelines. Bosses don't know WTF to do if it isn't in a Rule/Regulation manual, leaders do.

Is it legal for a cop to be drawing blood in a hospital?

Seems like that's beyond his scope of evidence gathering.

And it's just that simple.

Unfortunately, leadership skills are about as common as common sense.

Obviously you didn't read the [bleep] Original Post. Impressive.

He was trained as a forensic phlebotomist

Doc, you are exactly correct that leadership failed on all sides. Some calm voices and reasoned discourse were needed and were not present.

However, implied consent has not been the law in Utah since 2007, and the Supreme Court has recently ruled that a warrant or consent is required for a blood search. No consent was possible since the victim of the crash was unconscious.

There was nothing done wrong by the cop. The driver had already consented to blood draw by action of having his CDL. The cop did his job--that's all.

The nurse did not do her job, because none of that was her job to do anyway. The cop might have been a jerk, but the nurse had/has no standing in this case.

Yur right! FOOk that GD piece a' paper

...If in doubt? ..Bust EM'!

Probably not.

Implied consent went the way of the dodo bird in 2007 in Utah. And we have have a recent Supreme Court ruling that turns a lot of the old laws on their head. A blood draw now requires consent (not possible if you're unconscious) or a warrant.

I would posit that the nurse was the only one actually doing her job.

As Doc stated, leadership was absent all around.

The unconscious crash victim was in the care of the hospital, and unable to act for himself. If the hospital had allowed an illegal blood draw, the victim could sue the hospital. In light of recent changes to the laws governing blood draws, it seems likely to me that the draw would have been illegal.

How would the nurse back down? Do you think that belligerent cop would let her back away?

So does a hospital's internal "policy" supercede a state law?

Well dumbfuq, ya just don't walk into a hospital and perform medical proceedures trained or otherwise.

Don't you have some pre-teenage boys to go suck off or something?

If that policy is consistent with Supreme Court Precedence, yes, it does.

I agree this was a failure of leadership. More on the part of the cop than the nurse. Seems like many are not reading the whole story or paying attention to things that have happened. Say what you want about the nurse, but the SC has ruled that you need a consent or a warrant for the blood draw. She had the policy of her organization and called her supervisor. Seems she knew exactly what to do. the cop on the other hand was pissed she didn't just bow down to him. He obviously didn't know what to do, so he just resorted to police state tactics. His fellows cops are heard saying, "this won't stick". "Why don't we just get a warrant?" He should have listened.

According to the story, they didn't suspect the driver was impaired. They wanted a blood sample to "protect the driver". The link to the sesame street version of CDL testing says a person "can" be tested. You need a "must", "shall", "will", "required" or some other similar word to make it stick. In the end, the cop is placed on leave. The nurse was released and not charged. City leadership apologized to the nurse. This kind of thing happens when the city leadership knows its in a legal bind.

Why would you not draw it in a hospital?

Their was a leadership failure, no doubt.

But there are only two principle actors here.

The nurse is standing up for a principle...... patients rights.

The cop is standing up for....... what?

Bureauracratic beligerence.

Nurse is right and cop is wrong.

Denton,

Does the uninformed consent law pertain to CDL drivers in your state? That is highly unlikely.

Good legal question.

However, the recent Birchwood Supreme Court decision definitely applies. No warrant, no consent, no blood draw.

Edited to add the relevant portion of the Utah code:



So a person can have his CDL revoked or suspended if he refuses to submit to the listed tests.

The victim did not refuse, but neither did he consent that we know of. In the absence of consent or a warrant, Birchwood applies and I think a blood draw would be illegal.

Doc,

Great post and I agree with you 100%. This is why I don't drive through Georgia where this incident happened.

Also, I'm curious if maybe the driver had a CDL.

My favorite colors is green.



Thanks again,
Campfire Moron

PS-I didn't actually read your post but agree with it regardless.

Ya'll need to check the CFR 40 for CDL drug testing rules. The driver of the CDL truck was not cited , no test is required, if there is a fatality no matter who is cited he is required to be tested by his EMPLOYEE or their representative within 2 hrs, if the test cannot be admined in 8 , no test is required but documentation is to be recorded for the investigation.

Well, there you go again, actually citing pertinent and useful facts....

This will not play out well for the officer. Both the Mayor and the DA seem to love the spotlight, and are very careful to always look good in it. They seem to me to be more concerned about appearances than about anything else. The Mayor has renounced the officer's actions and the DA has announced an investigation. The officer isn't getting any love from City Hall.

I think you missed the point.

A "policy" really does not mean a whole lot. Hospitals have no shortage of attorneys, and I have dealt with plenty of them. That said, they are civil attorneys, and for the vast majority, the last time they dealt with criminal law, was when they were in school.

I have actually been in a couple situations almost exactly like the one that caused this schitt show. A very anti-cop and total b1tch head nurse was giving me no shortage of grief in one case. She even tried to bar me from entering the ER.

The shift supervisor told me to arrest her for Delay and Obstruct. I told him I would pass, knowing that it would only create more problems later, and somehow I would be found to blame with the usual " I didn't say that" coming from the chain of command.

Then I talked to the head prosecutor for the county, who was/is a giant egomaniac, and he ranted/raved and told me to arrest her immediately. I flatly refused, unless he came down there personally and reviewed everything. That put an end to the big talk. Finally I had a talk with the head of security (who was a retired 30 year LEO) and the head doc, and explained what I was there for, and showed him the state code authorizing me to do what I was attempting to do The doc called their civil attorney, who even though it took longer than I would have preferred, got back to me/us, after reviewing the codes I cited both for the crime of the suspect, but also for the obstruct and delay. I was very open about the conversation I had had between the head prosecutor and myself (as the lead detective). Rather than have a giant scene and cause future problems, we simply worked it out like adults.

About a year + later I had almost the same scenario happen on an arson case. The dumb snatch who burned her boyfriends house down, ended up getting smoke inhalation in the process and ended up in ICU. I showed up to collect her clothes (to be sent off to test for accelerants), as well as get blood. Danged if it was not the same spiteful witch from the ER, now in charge of the ICU that night. Fortunately the head of security over rode her with a phone call to some doctor that I never even spoke to.

The bottom line is that many times these stories are not even close to what they appear to be in print, and I think Doc has made a solid call on this one. The supervisors, both in the LE department and the Hospital are the ones who need to be dealt with, not the cop and the nurse. Both the cop and the nurse are in total no-win situations.

If I were on a civil jury i would find for the nurse and her supervisor. Leos know how to get a warrant in a hurry if they have to.

This is true because of the penalties that a hospital can face for an EMTALA or HIPAA violation. It can involve loss of Medicaid/ Medicare funds and substantial fines. Most hospitals cannot operate without these funds. It is better to support the patient then have the Fed find the hospital negligent. As per the OP, I agree that this was a lack of clear leadership in calming down and reasoning through the situation.

Also the training in nursing school is such that nurses are taught to be "warriors" in protecting "their" patient's rights. The nurse was thus only acting as she has been taught. She would willing put herself in harms way to protect "her patient". It was her ethical responsibility, releasing her of that responsibility was the administrators responsibility.

I think that doesn't quite hit the mark, either.

The policy is drafted so that the hospital and its employees are compliant with applicable law. The policy interprets the law for the hospital employees. If the people who drafted the policy did a good job, and if the employees follow the policy, then the employees are acting in accordance with the law. Apparently, this hospital's policy was compliant with the Supreme Court Birchwood decision, and the officer's information was out of date.

I'm having a hard time imagining how a compulsory blood draw is justified for the innocent and comatose victim of a wreck caused by another (now dead) driver, fleeing police. The officer admitted on tape that he couldn't get a warrant because there was no probable cause. Implied consent went away in Utah in 2007. The nurse committed no obstruction of justice because there was no case or investigation against the victim.

Now as to the situations you describe, good job. Showing the laws under which you are acting, and being reasonable and professional is how adults do things. We need more like you.

It does if someone (staff) at the hospital says it does, until it winds up in court, when it doesn't.


Doc, thanks for the 411 on this. Yeah, a real CF with no chiefs stepping up to the plate, leaving the indians to make battle.

Capt Kangaroo is hosed for sure. His actions have been denounced by his dept and the city. Fella is gonna be working dispatch for the sanitation dept. lol.

As to leadership failure. The more you look at it, it is one sided.

Once the victim arrived at the hospital he was under their control. At that point it's the hospital's job to do the blood draws, not the LEO's. Phlebotomist/RN draw the blood, place it into the evidence envelope. LEO seals the envelope and signs over the seal along with whom ever actually drew the blood. Blood gets sent off the the crime lab. Just because someone is "certified" doesn't mean they're proficient.

Assuming that the owner of the blood is suspected of a crime. Not the case here.

Sounds like perhaps LE trying to cover all bases in case of lawsuits resulting from the high speed chase.

Getting supervisors involved is ok and a good first step, BUT, in matters of LAW you need to get those most familiar with the law involved. This would mean either the cop getting a warrant from a judge or, getting the DA's office to talk with the hospital's attorney where they can hash out the legality of the issue. Did arresting the nurse result in the cop getting the blood sample he wanted? No it didn't. So, what was the point?

I did administrative enforcement of hazardous waste laws (both State and Federal). I was trained as to what I could and could not do when met with a refusal. Refusal of a company to provide me access to a facility or to their records was an administrative violation NOT a criminal violation. Our recourse to such a refusal was to first SHOW the company the regulation requiring access then, if access was still denied, we contacted our agency's attorney who would advise the company that such a refusal was a violation of our regulations and that our next recourse would be to seek a search warrant from a judge and, if obtained, then any violations noted would be prosecuted criminally. What we could NOT do is: misrepresent the law, bully the company representatives, act unprofessionally or send our environmental police officers to the facility to arrest the company representative refusing access. In order to get a permit to manage hazardous wastes, companies agreed to allow inspections of their facilities. Refusals could also result in their permits being pulled. Agreeing to consent to inspections when they were issued their permits did NOT allow us to trespass and did NOT constitute the company waiving their 4th amendment rights.

The way the police in this manner handled the situation was inappropriate. The cop got annoyed because he wasn't getting what he wanted. He did not act as a professional. He lost his cool. He should be fired.

Sorry Doc but no way was this nurse wrong or out of line. She clearly told the police officer that the victim(truck driver) needed to be under arrest or a warrant issued for the blood draw. The DUMB ASS cop could have had warrant in his hands in 10-15 minutes
and this whole debauch would never had happened. Now what, The cop and his supervisor are deep in a mire with possible fines and imprisonment looking at them and this nurse is looking at a very well paid early retirement if she chooses.
My take is since the cops were in a high speed chase of the one killed by this stupid chase when he slammed head on into the truck were trying to get their arse out of trouble by the future investigation that surely will come and a wrongful death lawsuit by
hopefully being able to place all blame on trucker as this is famous for happening.

I hope the Captian and officer spend a few months in jail along the way.

There are any number of ways to back down. If I had been the duty doc on that day, and if I'd been called upon to intervene, I would have done so. I noticed someone who looked like a doc just standing back in the video, watching and not doing anything, which was unacceptable in my view. Cops are more likely to listen to a doc than to a nurse, and just by virtue of the doc's implied higher authority, I think the doc on scene could have slowed this whole thing down.

The first (and most likely to be accepted) way would be to say, "Look, I don't want this to turn into an tunnecessary confrontation. Let's wait for my administrator to get here, and your supervisor. Let's let them sort this out." In other words, I'd do everything I could to give leadership a chance to get there and sort things out. 99 times out of 100 this sort of action gets upset people in the ER to cool out enough that the situation can be resolved non-confrontationally.

If the cop insisted he was going to go ahead with the blood draw, I'd not step in his way. I'd reiterate the hospital policy, but tell him he was free to execute his duty as he sees it. If the blood draw turns out to be illegal, it's on him, not on the hospital. If the blood is inadmissible as evidence, let the court decide.

But bottom line, a blood draw is not a significant harm. Real damages are negligible. If he sues, he sues. I doubt the hospital or the nurse or the doc would be in for anything near as rough a time as the cop/agency.

Dead wrong. The supervisors on both sides escalated this situation into the Charlie Foxtrot it became. The cop and the nurse are secondary to the conflict, even though they are on the front line.

And brw, it's "there", not "their", and "principal", not "principle".

Mack, I appreciate you weighing in on this. Your cases are exactly on point. There is ALWAYS a better way to deal with this issues rather than battering our heads against the brick wall of bureaucracy.

Wrong Again Doc, I have been involved with trucking for over forty years and have CDL with all endorsements and NOWHERE does it state you have given your consent to squat!

Except for the part where the cop admitted he did not have sufficient probably cause for a warrant.

was it unconstitutional to draw the blood of a man that was not under arrest and had not given consent? Just curious. I cannot sympathize with the police in this instance, he could have gotten a warrant and made this issue into a non issue. Instead he looks like a bully and in fact he is one. I hope that he is disciplined or let go for his behavior. No amount of spin from anyone can make an unconstitutional search right in my book.

The 4th:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gentlemen, I would think the hospital did a blood draw when this man arrived . No doctor or Nurse will do anything without this because they must know what is in your blood to safely treat the person since he could not speak for himself..

larrylee.... I think you're missing the point I made in the OP, amigo. I'm not arguing the points of law here. If y'all want to do that, I can't stop you. But if you want to address the point of the OP, which was emphatically NOT trying to take one side or the other in this mess but was trying to point out how it could be avoided in the future, that would be much more appreciated.

This is correct and the results are confidential until a subpoena is produced to collect the results as evidence.

Agreed. This is done all the time. We draw a "rainbow" of blood vials when a trauma victim comes in, including EtOH and Urine Drug Screen when the Foley is placed. Those specimens are kept on hand and are turned over to law enforcement when a subpoena is obtained, and there is no chain of custody issue.

Yes, a fair amount of police officers are trained in phlebotomy to obtain blood without incurring a cost from another facility and to shorten chain of custody. One of my local departments has over 1/2 of their staff trained.

As an aside I believe I read that this officer is also in possession of an active paramedic certification.

This Nurse is highly trained and was well versed in the LAW,to bad Dumb cop was not!

The cop needs to go down. He acted like a barbarian. How far up her back does he push her arm before he's not being a good cop?

I used to know dog catchers that enjoyed the job because they could hurt the animals. Like I have said before, Police people need to be well vetted and have tests on a yearly basis to see if they are still mentally fit for the job. This guy is a bully and does not need to be on the police force.

The cop was a dork and totally wrong. The Nurse was cool and done everything by the book, BTW last time I checked you did not give away any rights by getting a CDL.. Supreme Court of the United States OVER RULES all DOT.

But that would take a court order to release. The blood test cannot be used in court unless there has been a documented chain of custody this is not done routinely in a hospital.

Mack,
I am not an Leo but could you please expound on this a little more? I have always found your information regarding law enforcement to be very informative. I have over 20 years of career ems experience so obviously this incident is being highly talked about around my work and I would like to be better informed.

Here in WA state, blood draws at Leo request on scene are nothing new to me. But these experiences have obviously been at the scenes of mva's where dui or another such crime is suspected. I have also transported many a driver from an mva while working a bls unit (thus no one certified to draw blood) with a PD escort to the emergency department for this very goal.

I have tried researching Utah law a bit and from what I have found and interpreted Utah law specifically disallows blood draws on unconcsious patients sans warrant. The only exemption I can find is in the investigation of possible dui.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S522.html?v=C41-6a-S522_1800010118000101

In watching the entire 18 minutes body cam video I believe the detective repeatedly makes it clear that the semi driver is in no way under investigation for any crime. So my question would be what if any law would sanction this blood draw.

The entire 18 minute body cam footage:
https://youtu.be/yia7qs01z1M

Again good sir I am in no way looking to argue as I honestly don't know, just reaching out to you as a trusted source to better understand this from an Leo and possible state code angle.


Doc,
We have also communicated about ems/Leo issues in the past so if you have the time and desire I would love to hear your thoughts on this as well.

You're grasping at straws. If... if...if... is for school kids.

The cop was not interested. He was in control and all you have to do ask him and he will tell you so.

Cop was wrong.
Prison time for him.

Early retirement for nurse.

The cop was not interested. He was in control and all you have to do ask him and he will tell you so.


Sure sounded like it to me.

we had a situation where two officers had to arrest a thug a couple of months ago, the thug was giving the two of them a hard time but the video showing them beating him after the cuffs were on as he lay on his belly and then standing up and giving a gratuitous kick or two sunk both their carriers.

I dont dispute that we need to pay police officers more money for what they do.

ED , I am sure the time and date would be on the draw. I know nothing about if alcohol would deplete and be weaker few hours later but I think it would not therefore nothing was really lost..my $0.02 worth.
One of you lab guys or doctor set me right please...BTW Doc I am in agreement fully with what you have said.

Doc, we understood your point, get the supervisors directly involved. A good idea for sure, but you are missing the point if you think a hospital administrator and a police administrator were effectively going to settle a point of law. The DA and hospital attorney would have needed to get involved to argue their understanding of the law and, ultimately, if they couldn't come to an agreement the DA would have to go in front of a judge and present their case for a search warrant. THAT is how this legal issue would have had to be resolved. Does anyone think this nurse will be prosecuted for obstruction? No. The cop knew that when he arrested her. His arrest constituted nothing more than using his authority to harass and intimidate her for saying "no" to him. "How dare she, I'll show her whose boss!" that's the message he meant so send. He needs to be sent a message that such bullying and unprofessional behavior will not be tolerated. He should be fired and hopefully that happens one day shy of being eligible for getting his full pension.

Cooper57m. Sir I think you got it but my problem was all the BS over the CDL. Believe me this is 2017 and almost all the BS that originally come out with the law has been overturned by SCOTUS. The main purpose
of the law now is to get all parties and states on one page. No LEO or DOT can refuse a person his rights; and consent is a right. Does not Title 1983 fall in here somewhere?

The mayor and Chief of Police have come out and apologized and admitted the officer was wrong. No charges against the nurse were filed, the arrest was improper and an investigation into the arresting officer's action is underway and he has been place on administrative leave.

Larry, my comments were addressed to Doc.

The nurse got her back up?..lol good god man, she was rational,professional,composed ,polite, all while concisely
and chronologically citing LAW BASED hospital policy and options available to the detective.
the nurses maturity and responsible approach seemed to have raised the hairs on that belligerent cops neck.



He knew she was a soft target and he had his thin blue line of complicit badge/gun danglers that allowed him to act
in such poor manner.

There has to be a documented paper trail on ALL the people who handled the blood sample (evidence). Regular hospital lab draws do not do this. Typically a phlebotomist draws the blood takes it to the lab places it on a receptacle and the next available tech will pick it up and run the sample(s) for whatever was ordered (broken chain of evidence). The hospital can use the lab work to treat the patient but not for police purposes.

coop... I appreciate your statement, but with all due respect, after reading it I wonder if you understood my point at all...?

I'm not really interested in getting the legal issue resolved here. To be sure, it will be resolved, and it will have to be resolved in court. What I AM interested in is looking for ways and means of avoiding the Charlie Foxtrot that DID happen, that I believe WOULD NOT have happened if the police supervisor and the hospital administrator had exercised leadership instead of blindly following rules, policy, and procedure instead of looking for a peaceful and cooperative solution to the problem.

I know from experience, as I wrote in the OP, that giving folks time to cool off, and giving both sides a chance to voice their positions and opinions, almost always results in a compromise that everyone can live with BEFORE the attorneys have to become involved. You immediately went to the idea that a point of law had to be adjudicated; my position is that a compromise could have and should have been reached that would have allowed all parties to return home without all this internet video froofroo.

I am advocating for leaders, not lawyers. To be sure, lawyers would have to hash it all out eventually, but they excel at doing that, in their own time, and in their own space. In the courtroom. Not in the Emergency Room.

larrylee, I wish I hadn't made the CDL argument seem quite as clear-cut in the OP as you and others have read it; I don't know if they were right or wrong, and for the purpose of my question it is not relevant. The police action was based on their (possibly faulty) understanding of their duty under the law. I'm not arguing for or against the legality of it. That's for the lawyers to figure out.

But in the real world of the ER, when decisions and actions have to be made in a hurry due to a multitude of pressures, someone has to step up and find a solution to an apparent impasse like this one. Mackay Sagebrush posted an excellent example of how he avoided getting crushed like a bug under the wheels of an unfeeling bureaucratic bamboozle earlier today. THAT is the sort of solution that was needed in Utah last Friday, and should have been easy to accomplish if the people who were supposed to be leaders had acted like it.

You are correct on the grammar, but wrong in your opinion. And...... it IS just your opinion, you know.

And I don't know what "brw" stands for.

ROR... right you are sir, and it is just an opinion. Damned if I know what "brw" stands for!

I wrote a nice paragraph for this thread and accidentally put it in the Cop beating up Nurse thread and I don't know how to move it over

Doc,

I agree that the issue should have been de-escalated and then resolved by leadership.

But I see a bigger problem that has been building up over decades, and I don't see it getting any better. As of December 15, 1791, it was pretty clear cut what rights we had under the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Which should be pretty clear cut. Unfortunately there have been a variety of cases where the courts have made exceptions or clarifications, which even vary by state. So for a variety of reasons some LEO are performing searches and seizures without a warrant being issued. Sometimes the law is on their side, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the courts will rule on their side, sometimes they won't. In fact there are so many laws on the books, and so many court findings that modify those laws that one could argue that it is impossible for anyone to know every single one of them and how to apply them to every situation.

IMHO there is absolutely no excuse for law enforcement to not have a warrant before performing any search. With modern technology, there is absolutely no reason that an officer can't fill out a request, email it to whatever judge is on call and get the warrant emailed back in minutes.

I don't think it would be a stretch to expect our founding founders would be aghast at the thought of a policemen drawing blood from an unconscious man without a warrant, especially when they have to technology to seek the warrant in less time than it takes to argue with the nurse, call your supervisor, and cuff the nurse.

Bottom line is that whoever hired the nurse picked a winner and ever who hired the cop picked a loser.

That happens pretty often.

If I'm in a pinch, I want that little spitfire nurse on my side.



I think you are bang-on correct. And SCOTUS agrees.

But the thing that makes it worse is that the unconscious man was not under arrest or suspected of any crime. The officer admitted during the event that he could not get a warrant, because there was no probable cause. So if he knew that he couldn't get a warrant, and knew there was no probable cause, and therefore knew that he was not investigating a crime by the unconscious man, by what wild stretch of imagination did he think trying to coerce a nurse to turn over a sample was OK? The thought would cause the Founders to turn over in their graves.

Back in the day that I needed to get a warrant for a thing like this--ER-- there was always a judge available for such a need. (But it was mostly unaccompanied minors).

I agree with DocRocket. A little leadership here would have helped a lot.

ATTENTION:
The blood draw policy was jointly prepared and both University of Utah police and Salt Lake City police agreed
to the policy over a year ago (the print-out the nurse held and was referencing held the terms of the LAW based agreement)
The officers were either unaware of it or just plain ignoring it....whatever, the onus still rests with police to make
sure they know and understand it.

The hospital medical staff & leadership clearly had their schit together and the three (3) police depts involved didnt,
which is rather telling. Theres a symptomatic and systematic problem within LE...fools in or out of uniform can
pretend otherwise.

Why does that not surprise me.

Based on what you posted to the other thread, for 30 years you were part of the problem, and a good example of why citizens don't trust police.

Exactly, if you call out ANY Public Employee you are called a "hater" Its a conditioned response from them and they have used it for decades.

If I mess up a project, or lose and account over a bad decision, I would get called on the carpet for sure. I don't think responding to my boss by asking "what are you, a Chemist hater"? would go over very well. Public Employees believe they have zero accountability.....and for damn good reasons, they have zero accountability and have been allowed to run the asylum unchecked for far too long. Any true cleaning of the swamp must involve the banning of public employee scam fake unions.....or we are all wasting our time.

[size:26pt][/size]

That didn't take you long! Learning to speak a foreign language now huh?

The way this looks to me is that the nurse will accept the mayor and chief's apology and get on with life because there was little to no real damage done. Like as not the suit will cost more than any recovery.

The cop may well have to find a new line of work, and well he should. The very least that ought to happen is he gets busted back to new recruit status, retrained and kept under competent supervision for a year or so. His supervisor needs to learn how to supervise and lead. PD leadership needs a serious talking to with official notice papered on top.

For those calling the nurse on her attitude. Her attitude will be the only thing that keeps the city and police department from paying major restitution in this case. Would not blame her one iota, if she did sue but understand she probably will not. Would say I wonder if the police would be as understanding, if the situation were reversed but sadly, am 99.9% sure I know the answer already. And for those who say "you do not / can not understand, because your not a cop". Yes I do understand. The fact that you do not is the major part of the problem.

And without the recording of this it would only be someone who was ticked spouting off, if anything at all were to come of it.

Here, read this before you pout your badge back on.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf

After you are done reading the LAW, come back and post thesection of the Supreme Court ruling that said anything about allowing a 4th amendment violation due to "timeliness" .

WRONG.

Read.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf

EXACTLY!!!!

This situation reminds me of an issue my wife had years ago while covering the ER. She was in a room with the rest of the team while they were trying to resuscitate a man who coded when a cop that I had issues with in the past (you know the type, can't walk past a mirror with stopping to admiring himself, like Lt. Pat ) poked his head in the room and started to hassle my wife (she knew who he was...) about how long he's waited to have a legal ETOH drawn on a guy he brought in. Wife told him to get his dumb fuuking aze out of the room and go wait, his suspect was a low priority. And then the chief resident lit up robocop...

Funny thing was, a few weeks later robocop showed up at ER with another drunk who proceeded to puke all over robocop's uniform.

Denton,

I had a meeting early this morning with my ER Nurse Manager and a couple of our senior nurses to come up with a formal response to this incident for the benefit of our staff. As it happens, I had my iPad with me, so was able to share my OP on this thread with the group. The nurses all agreed with me completely... leadership was conspicuously absent in that Utah ED last week.

We also agreed that an incident such as the one in that video was unlikely to develop in our Department, because we know and work with our local police, deputies, highway patrol, and border patrol on a regular basis and we ALL consider ourselves part of the same team. Also, we have a proven policy in our department of separating belligerent persons (patients, staff, family, whomever) and letting cooler heads prevail, which has always worked (reference the 2 episodes I've mentioned earlier, as well as several others my nurse manager has intervened in when I was not available/present).

Cheryl (nurse manager) noted that our standard practice is to draw a "rainbow" (all the colors of blood draw tubes) on all trauma patients, conscious or otherwise, to be sure we can provide optimum care for the patient. And we hold all blood obtained for repeat analysis if needed. If LE needs some of that blood, they have full access to our lab and lab results with appropriate paperwork (subpoena and/or patient's signed consent). We also agreed that if LE came in and said they needed to draw blood from an unconscious patient, it's not our policy nor our job to prevent that happening. The courts can decide if the blood is admissible or not.

But FWIW, without my prompting them to say anything, my nurse manager, charge nurse, and the third senior nurse all said this video doesn't pass the smell test. Something else was going on there that we aren't being told about. My staff don't like the cop's actions, but they all feel that the nurse's behavior in this video was "off".

Anyone who would argue the technical legality of the police officer and superiors actions is a part of the problem. You can't see the forest for the trees. Body cams and other recording devices are going to weed out a lot of police officers and long time practices. Cameras in every phone , on every highway , every city street , body cams , and dash cams are slowly making old time blue line customs a liability instead of an asset to officers and departments.

DocRocket , would you have given the sample requested ? If you had and I was the patient and it turned out to be illegal I would certainly pursue every legal means to hold you and the hospital responsible. The nurse was 100% correct in refusing the officers demands and I can only hope I have someone with her integrity caring for me if I was in that situation. The fact that the officer acknowledged that he had no probable cause to get a warrant and continued to try and get the sample is all you need to know about him and his department.

There it is right there.

Even if this doesn't pass the smell test and there is a back story, IMHO the nurse is a hero.

The officer, every officer like him, and supervising officers that support such actions need to be purged from every police force and law enforcement agency in the country.

Looking for a fight? Look elsewhere. Your question was answered previously.

Doc,

I just lost a lot of respect for you. Nice to know you will just let Hastings trample anyone's right in your hospital while you stand aside.

What was the point of even having your meeting if you are just gong to stand down and let the cops do what ever they want?

In this case, I believe Detective Payne sought access to Burn Department Head Nurse Wuddel's patient so that he could draw blood. Detective Payne has phlebotomy training and is part of a special 'Blood Draw Unit'. The patient was not under arrest, was unconscious (so couldn't give consent), and no subpoena had been granted for the draw.

I think it is obtuse at best to not presume that this incident will have national effects on his these types of situations will be handled going forward. I'm sure every major healthcare organization and law enforcement agency is not only watching this closely but meeting with their policy makers and lawyers to ensure a smooth process of this should ever arise again. I would also assume both healthcare systems and their local Leo's will be reaching out to one another to have a sit down and form policies that will meet both entities needs while still respecting the patients rights and the applicable laws.

As to the OP I am in 110% agreement that this situation would never have escalated to this point had the nurses supervisor contacted the detectives supervisor and agreed to both do their jobs and head down to the hospital and work it out. Neither the detective or nurse were in a good position on this one.

The nurse was bound by her facilities policy and her oath as a caregiver, the officer stuck by his commands orders and possibly his belief of the law as it stood. That said it was clearly an issue that needed solving way above either of their pay grades.

Yes I also think the detective took it too far and his communication skills and ability to control his temper were both very poor.

In the arrest video you can clearly hear the hospital workers saying the Hospital Administrator is on the way.

Hospital leadership was reacting to mitigate the situation, it was the law enforcement leadership who failed to reciprocate.

Are patients suffering extensive burns at increased risk of infection/negative outcomes and specific treatment practices in place to minimize such risks, including restricting access to these patients?

The nurse refusing police access to the patient was the Burn Unit Head Nurse. Was the burn victim still an ED patient? It sounds like the victim was a burn unit patient, but that the interaction between Head Nurse Wuddel and Detective Payne took place in the ED as that's where Detective Payne made his request for access to the patient for the purpose of making a blood draw.

Further, while ED staff commonly work with LE, interacting with them daily, Nurse Wuddel, being a burn department nurse didn't share that same experience.

Assuming that the hospital didn't participate in the drawing of the sample and adequately documented as much in the patients chart that they declined involvement I doubt that suit would get very far as the suing the hospital.

Hospitals as a whole have a s-hit ton of liability and thusly have policies to isolate themselves as much as possible. If their documentation can show they refused to draw the sample and didn't turn over their samples without a warrant then I'm fairly certain they are off scott free.

I also do not know of any laws that would allow a hospital to refuse law enforcement access to the patient assuming they were not in the midst of performing a procedure on said patient at the time of the LE request for access. As this patient was already clinically stabilized and admitted to the burn unit no such procedure was likely occurring at that time.

Sure a law enforcement blood sample does have a stricter chain of custody as the legal ramifications dictate but I also believe that the hospital sample carries a chain of custody as the drawing nurse signs the label on the vial. It's a stretch to claim that anyone can handle it and thusly taint it. I know of more then one person convicted of dui based solely on the sample obtained by the hospital while drawing the initial "rainbow" and later obtained by LE via warrant so we know the hospital draw is legal in court.

Again I am not defending this officers actions, but as Doc said there was likely a lot more to the story then we know so far. On the outside this appears horrendous and a poor job by the detective but I will withhold my opinion until more is known..

I imagine there will be some ethics committee meetings in the near future in that neighborhood.

Cop had no warrant, no consent, and the subject was not under arrest. At this point the officer has no legitimate law enforcement authority for his request. At this point his request has the same legitimacy as one from a homeless drunk, or a gang member or any other trespasser requesting access to a secure ward of the hospital.

Hmm. Not that I care at all whether you respect me or not... but what exactly would you suggest I--or any other ER doc--do in such a circumstance, other than the plan I outlined in the OP? Should I throw down on the cop? Start a gun battle right there with him? Get arrested for a felony and lose my medical license, just so this patient's blood remains sacrosanct?

And again, not that your approval was sought, but the object of our meeting was to come up with a plan to avoid any such a confrontation in our facility in the future, because it would be detrimental to the good order of our Department and our facility. I believe I made that very clear in the OP and again in my post this morning.We are not the ACLU. We are not the Southern Law Policy Center. We do not crusade for patients' constitutional rights. We are an Emergency Department; we treat emergent medical cases in accordance with the health care laws by which we are governed. The actions of other agents outside of our purview are not something we can or should interfere with.

.

I am making a wild ass guess but I bet that the policy the nurse was standing on is hospital wide and not specific to the ED or burn unit. I am also guessing that the officers came to the ED first ad hat is their usual stop at the hospital. They likely told the ED charge nurse why they were there and she contacted the charge nurse from the burn unit to come down which was nurse Wuddel.

As to if a burn patient is at a higher risk of infection the answer is typically a resounding YES! Of course being in a burn unit doesn't necessitate the patient had life threatening burns although we appear to know that this patient had. That said I have yet to ever transport a patient to or from a burn unit that the patients wounds were not covered and that visitation wasn't allowed. Typically there is a cart with gloves, gowns, booties and masks outside each persons room for infection control as their needs dictate. I see very few reasons outside of a clinically unstable patient that the LE couldn't be adequately placed in PPE to enter the room.

I too have watched the entire 18 minute body cam footage and agree the detective said he didn't have PC to get a warrant. I am no police officer and don't claim to be but am very suspect of that statement as this was a fatality investigation since the fleeing felon died on scene so I question if that fact alone wouldn't be enough for a telephonic warrant.

Again just my guesses here and I applaud the nurse and frown on the detectives actions but that too think there is more to this story then has been released as to shy LE was so adamant for a sample.


Also for those saying the Supreme Court has stated warrantless blood draws are illegal that's not really true either if one reads the actual decision. What the SC stated was in "most" circumstances a warrant is needed but in the case of emergency or exigent circumstances a warrantless blood draw may indeed be legal and admissible in court. Sadly the SC gave no examples as to what they feel constitutes a situation for these exemptions.

Not looking for a fight sir but I am genuinely curious how you come to this conclusion. The Supreme Court decision states LE needs a warrant in most circumstances for a unconsented blood draw but they also state its permissible in emergency and exigency circustances. Sadly it doesn't list any such circumstances and leave too much grey area.

So from my reading the SC doesn't necessarily agree and it isn't an all or nothing deal. The case that everyone is talking about stating a warrant is needed is Missouri -vs - McNeely. In that very decision the justices cite SC cases where warrantless draws stood due to extigency.

SC ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf

What could possibly go wrong having a cop cross trained as a phlebotomist? To circumvent hospital policies? To draw blood in every instance and throw away the samples when not needed?

There was a failure of leadership but it wasn't the hospitals failure. The fact that the patient wasn't under arrest, there was no PC and no warrant, nor did implied consent apply all illustrate that the law (which the cop didn't know changed a decade ago) favored the patient and by extension the nurse and hospital.

It's a shame that the us versus them has become so prevalent that a woman doing her nursing job within the scope of the law can be bullied and arrested at the hospital just because the cop doesn't like being told he can't violate the law there. I know some ER's that had the cop tried that he'd be dealing with a violent reaction from the male staff. The cop needs to find a more appropriate job, one that he actually understands. The same applies to his stupidvisor. They'll learn how to ask if you want fries with that and that's all the responsibility they should be given.

A cops responsibility is often in defiance of a healthcare workers oath. The two are not compatible in many cases and by following one you violate the other. When a patient is brought to the ED they become the responsibility of the hospital. The hospital has an obligation to follow the law and do what's in the best interest of the patient, especially when the patient is unconscious. Does anyone know if the cop/s that were involved with the chase and fatality collision had their blood drawn? Or was all the focus on an innocent victim and an innocent nurse?

When I worked at Harborview the ER staff had a good relationship with the various PD's but if this happened there I doubt that the nurse would have been taken to the patrol car by an overzealous cop. More likely he'd have been escorted out or worse. Some ER's are tougher than others. Dr. Copass would have had that cop wishing he'd knew the law better.

Hey Doc,
Staying on topic with your OP, let's take it a step further.
It sounds like the Hospital Super was in route or in the process. It also sounded like the Police Lt. had no interest in being there, only getting a blood draw.
That may be moot or not but.... Neither Supervisor was willing to back down on the phone and who says they would in person? Let's say both supervisors showed up and the same situation came about and the Lt. was going to arrest the hospital administrator like it or not. Next the Police Captain and head hospital dude show up and there is still a pissing match. I have noticed that the higher on the totem pole a person is, the more stubborn they can be.

If chain of command is going to strictly follow their policy on both sides, it's policy rather than leadership issues IMO.

Dash cam footage of the crash.

Doc,

I'd hope you did exactly what this nurse did, present the offending officer with the written agreement between your to agencies outlining why his request is not valid, call the hospital administrator, and not provide access to the patient. In this instance the patient was in the secure burn ward, so there was no need to tackle anyone, just don't open the door. And if the cop behaves like this one does, I want you to release the tape so the department can feel the full force of the public outrage at their unacceptable, unethical, and illegal behavior.

Sure, this nurse will be the eye of the storm for a short while, but it's likely to result in some positive change.

Would your course of action lead to the same degree of positive change?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke


Obtaining a blood sample is not a matter of life and death for the cops. Interfering with the duties of nurses and doctors in an ER is a matter of life and death, not just for the patient in question but for the others too.

A doctor, nurse or any other medical worker has an obligation to their patient FIRST. A medical professional doesn't have an "obligation" to appease the police in order to stay friendly, not an ethical one anyway. Any HC professional that is willing to violate the law and the patients rights in order to avoid a conflict with the cops doesn't deserve to be a HC professional. Maybe a reserve phlebotomist cop but not a doctor, nurse or anyone that has contact with patients. 😉

Police officers chasing perp.
Perp drives erratic, crosses car lanes and strikes tanker truck.
Innocent Tanker truck driver, is badly burned. Put in medical induced Coma.
Transfered from ER to Burn unit.

Police officer wants innocent truck drivers blood.
Head Burn unit Nurse says no.
Its against the law, unconstitutional and against Hospital and LE agreements.
Police officer looses it.. his authority is questioned.
Arrests Nurse for protecting here comatose burned patient from having his rights violated.


I noticed a Doc here, would just let the cops do it?
Other LE says they should just be allowed to do it?


No, the Nurse was in the clear. Cop will end up loosing both his jobs.. Good.

Video was released ONE MONTH after the event because SLC PD was not doing anything to the Police officer.
Footage released.. suddenly on paid leave.



Is it any wonder people are complaining about cops violating minorities rights?
When in such a clear cut case, people are still saying SHE overreacted.
Wonder how blacks feels when they see other blacks shot and the Officer goes free..

Doc...

You're wise to be discussing this with your work group. It's much better to get these things worked out in advance, rather than under the pressure of the moment.

As you point out, one of the first things a new patient gets is a whole panel of blood tests so that treatment can be planned. That evidence is in independent, trustworthy hands (the hospital) and is surely available on competent legal authority. So why the heck was Detective Payne in such a major sweat to get an independent sample? That just makes no sense to me. I can't think of any legitimate reason for it.

I had not seen the Salt Lake Tribune videos until they were posted here. But we see Nurse Wubbel holding a document and explaining that it is the governing agreement between the police and the hospital, and that it stipulates that in order for him to have a sample, the patient has to be under arrest, or give consent, or a warrant is needed. The officer says, "So you're saying I'm not getting blood?". She stammers for an instant, and he proceeds to arrest her.

The video of the COP and Mayor's press conference contains the tidbit that the blood draw policy has been revised. I'll bet the policy was not liberalized.

My thought question for the moment is this:

If someone saunters into your ED, and announces that he's Hoboken Harry and His Traveling Phlebotomy Show, and that he's here to draw blood from one of your unconscious patients, are you going to let him? Knowing you from your posts, I think you are much more likely to ask your security to help you vigorously escort Harry out the door. ("And don't come back. Or the horse you rode in on.")

So the next question is, in this case, what authority does the police officer have that Hoboken Harry does not? He's not investigating a case. He has no warrant to serve. There is no possible exigency, because there is no open case against the unconscious patient. There are no laws being broken by anyone present. There is an existing policy between the hospital and the officer's Chief of Police that governs the case, and it says "no blood draw". What authority does the officer have to act?

If he has no authority to act, what is your obligation to your patient?

I think almost everyone here on the board treats our LEOs with respect and courtesy, as they ordinarily deserve. But I don't think any of us should assume that all orders or requests are lawful and should be granted. Studying Milgram's experiment on obedience to authority while I was in college rather permanently gave me a particular mindset. I suspect that yours may be about the same.

Great post, thanks

The hospital (U of U) has announced that police will no longer be allowed to interact with medical care personnel.

Listening between the lines of the CEO's statement, he was pretty pissed at his University Police.

This ought to get interesting. I wonder how he's going to keep them out?

I'd try to find some officers that uphold the Constitution and their oath. That would be a great start.

Easy. They will not be allowed into patient treatment areas.

I wonder how he's going to keep them out.

LOL. good luck with that.

Can't even get them to uphold the law when it comes to antifa ....

They aren't all jackwagons. If more of the good ones start policing the bad ones, stuff like this would be almost nonexistent.

I haven't seen this mentioned and whether it's relevant in this case. Some years back I worked in a small county run hospital in north Arkansas. From time to time a LEO would bring in an individual for blood alcohol to be drawn. The state provided a "kit" for the withdrawal that did not have a skin cleansing solution. All blood alcohols must be drawn with a skin cleanser that does not contain alcohol. (I used Phisohex) This is not true for medical draws.

I see that the nurse's actions have now led to the "positive change" of the hospital administrator barring further interaction with police. Yeah, that's an impressive accomplishment. The record of leadership failure in that situation and those organizations continues.

I can't positively know if the way I would handle a similar situation in my Department would be more successful than the Utah nurse's, but I am reasonably sure it would. In 27 years of Emergency Medicine I have cooled off more than a few dangerous confrontations. And my hospital and physician group and local Sheriff seem to think so as well.

Hospital "leadership" might want to keep in mind that anyone with the gravitas to clearly present a potentially dangerous set of behaviors to a magistrate can then set in motion the process to have that person brought to the ER to be evaluated....

If the potentially dangerous to self and others person happen to be a bully LEO that the ER doc had ALREADY been observing for the past hour or so, the psychiatric commitment might just be a slam dunk.

Obviously playing that card would only be done in an extreme situation.... but leaked security footage of something like that would blow up Youtube in an instant.....

Wha?

Are you suggesting that ER docs could respond to LE bullies by sectioning them to the ER for a psych eval?

Doc, I grant you this is turning into an even bigger Charlie Foxtrot, and the level of incompetence on both sides might be greater then I imagined. I'm still trying to figure out how the hospital plans to bar all interactions between the police and their staff. If the police show up with a warrant, some interaction will need to occur. Will the locals be required to hand it off to the University police? In Colorado and Wyoming the "University Police" are State Police.

According to the Nurse in the video the bulling of medical personal by the local PD was an ongoing issue. Knocking them down a few notches by making the cops wait in the car might be the type of wake up call the PD management needs. How many police commanders are now considering the possibility they could be bared from interactions with Hospital personal in their AO if their failures of leadership allow, or in this case, order their officers to arrest innocent medical personal.?

To take this measure, the Hospital must be very unhappy with the last of PD. If they don't pick up the pace, I wonder if the hospital will ask the Fed's to come take a look?

Anyone can go to a magistrate and present the reasons they believe someone is a danger.... if they convince the magistrate that these concerns have merit then an order is given to have that person brought to the ER. At this point it is up to an MD to decide if the person is out of control enough to be committed.

I can't imagine the system making that happen unless it was a pretty black and white case, but that is an option.

Denton...

As a physician, my obligation to my patient extends to the limit of my ability to provide medical care to him for his medical needs. I have no obligation to provide for his security of person outside of the scope of my practice. I do not own the hospital, and despite my training and former role in LE, I do not have a contract to provide security in the hospital to my patients or my staff, and if I presume to do so, even if I do not commit a crime I can be terminated by my physician organization and lose my hospital privileges, and if my actions are deemed to be criminal, the State may well suspend or revoke my license.

On a more practical note: I am obligated to provide medical care not to just the one patient who is threatened with a possibly illegal venipuncture, I am obligated to provide care for the patients in 14 other ER beds and 8 Urgent Care beds, as well as the supervisory services I'm obligatd to provide to 2 nurse practitioners, 6 RN's, 2-3 LVN's, and a host of other staff. Taking upon myself the role of civil rights protector to one patient in a situation such as the Utah case would put that entire organization, and all those other sick and injured patients, in jeopardy for hours and could even lead to some becoming gravely ill or even dying.

Even more practically speaking: a venipuncture is an almost trivial medical procedure. The physical and medical harm likely to come from an "illegal" venipuncture is almost nonexistent. The only real harm that is likely to come from it to my unconscious-and-unable-to-consent patient is a legal harm, not a medical one. And the lawyers for the patient, and the hospital, are quite likely to have any evidnce thus obtained declared inadmissible, so the risk of legal harm is practically as infinitesimal as that of real medical harm.

So: my adamant opposition to a LEO bent on getting a vial of blood that will result in no real harm to him, even if illegally obtained, could well result in substantial harm to any number of persons should I get myself arrested, or tased, or pepper sprayed, or even shot by this rogue cop.

These are the considerations I've been been taking into a account since I first saw the Utah video on Friday. These, and many others which are purely administrative in nature but are part of my job to consider as a physician leader. I am very confident that in such a situation I could defuse the bomb before it was lit, and I have good reasons for this confid nice. This sort of confidence requires experience in leadership, a discipline I've been training in for most of my 63 years. I would also rely on all my wiles, my cagey ability to flimflam, my position of Medical Authority (caps added tongue-in-cheek), my experience as a LEO (I still carry my badge), and anything else I could think of to get the cop (and my nurse!) to stand down and wait for the hospital administrator and police supervisor to come down to sort out the conflict. And I would use my "connections", for lack of a better word, to be sure those people arrived promptly.

Go back and re-read Mackey Sagebrush's post on how HE dealt with a similar set of problems in his dealings with a nurse he perceived as being obstructive. I previously alluded to the fact that I have had similar success in such situations. THAT is how a smart and sensible man deals with these things. Not by standing on a principle and to Hell with the consequences, but by finding a solution. That is what I do well. That is why I have been selected to run a busy and bloody ER. That is what I do.

Still, if it come down to the nut and I had to make a choice between letting that cop draw the blood that I believed he had no right to take or get myself arrested or beat up in opposing him, with all attendant harms that would devolve upon my Department, I would choose the the path that follows the Doctrine of Competing Harms, and I would choose the least harmful option. Not for my sake, not because I'm afraid of a fight, but for the sake of the greater good of the persons relying on me to fulfill my obligations to them to the best of my ability.

Does that answer your question, my friend? I expect the ethical subtleties of this answer may fly well above the heads of some here, but you asked... 😬

Now, on that note, I'm going to bed. I had a long 14 hours in my ER today and I have another shift tomorrow that promises to be equally challenging. I'll leave you chaps to chew the fat on this until tomorrow night. Good night.

Antelope Sniper... good question, the Feds and all... or possibly the Governor's office? I'll have to think about it. Now, I gotta get to bed. I'll get back to you on this. I have an early meeting with Administration tomorrow to discuss these issues further as they apply to our Hospital. Gnite.

She done exceedingly well all the same;... calm,courteous, composed, polite, rational, mature, responsible,
following due process, lawful and professional.

but obviously not good enough for a belligerent jackboot Leo...



Bingo....yet someone felt the need to start this thread on a pretense or quackery.

The three (3) police Depts involved were not interested in due process or the requirements of the LAW.
University of Utah police
Salt Lake City police
Dept. of Public Safety

University and Salt Lake Dept. both signed and assisted in creating the Blood Draw Agreement with the hospital,
but demonstrated total disregard for it.
Pub.Safety Dept. officers were not worth a drop of stale goat piss, instead taking the side of LEO group thuggery
and unlawfulness.

(an important distinction) Hospital was being sensibly pro-active ,
LE was recklessly reactive and impetuous.

It does indeed. Thank you. Have a good night's rest.

Added:

I'm sure that the CEO's position is a negotiating tactic. An accord will be reached, but not before concessions and officer training at the PD.

I really like the arrangement I saw in Idaho Falls. As you walk in the ER door, on your left you pass the front door of a police sub-station within the hospital. There are always officers there, and when seconds count they really are only seconds away.

The cop's motivation for getting the blood draw has been missed and is central to this particular situation. The cops chase will likely be held as a major factor in the injuries suffered by the truck driver/victim. Getting a blood sample showing the victim was dui would not change his legal position as it would be inadmissible. But, it would absolutely color any negotiations over how much the victim or his heirs could receive.

So, in reality, there is potential for significant monetary harm to the victim. For the hospital to decide to stand aside and allow unlawful draws just because it is easier than following an agreement and written policy already in place is not the adult answer. Cooling down the rogue cop in this case is the right answer, by whatever means needed, but standing aside would never be right.

Further, the fact this event is triggering very delayed actions shows a cover-up of the worst kind.

The requirement to get the blood sample revolved around federal law (DOT/CDL) correct? These local cops are performing an unfunded mandate. The after action/lessons learned on this is to change local police policy to not get involved in taking blood samples. If DOT require a blood sample, let them enforce it with federal law enforcement.

I think it was St. Augustine who said;"The world is a safe judge."

The overwhelming majority of persons, not just on this forum but across the internet, believe the Nurse was in the right and the Cop was in the wrong.

The small but extremely persistent minority who support the Cop's actions are usually members of Law Enforfement Agencies or have close ties to that community.

The length of this thread is a testimonial to their persistence in defending cops, just because they are cops.

St. Augustine would have locked this thread after two long pages.😀

The CYA aspect of this is what's worth discussing, but it is lost for the most part on this forum.

I did not realize until many pages in that the police stalling is what led to the public release of videos. The lack of leadership in the police force and the mayor's office becomes much more obvious.

Oh they have leadership all right Art, leadership that wants to maintain the status quo. Not unlike a few posters here who justify their existence with bullsh!t...

The whole incident is another huge blemish on an otherwise noble profession. Truth is it shouldn't have gone down this way and in this instance the legal profession should clean up it's own mess. Don Quijote de la Jack Ass had no authority other than his gun and badge to gallop in and take over an ER but he, they did and in the process gave credibility to the charges that law enforcement actually has nothing to do with the law.

Joe

Like I said earlier, I don't see this working out well for the cop or his supervisor. At any point in time that we tolerate the outside the law activity of our police we are asking for more of the same. The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes that like Doc Rocket resisting up to the point of further resistance endangering his patent(s) more so than standing aside, the city must make an example of this. First, the officer should be flat out fired. Second, his supervisor who ordered him to engage in unlawful activity needs to be fired. That without question cannot be tolerated in any way by the city. Any tolerance whatsoever simply put as possible forms basis for the next incident as a pattern of behavior and punitive damages. There is no rationale that allows unlawful activity available here. None. The cop admitted he had no basis for the illegal search and seizure. Lastly, the officers who stood by and watched the unlawful activity happen need severe sanctioning At the very least, the same action the nurse went through needed to be done by at least one of them. The cop needed to be informed that he was engaged in an illegal search and seizure and that he was subject to arrest until and unless he could present exigent circumstance rationale. It's pretty difficult for me to conceive of a reason not to arrest the cop for assault from what is available in the video, In that light, a strong case can be made for their dismissal as well.

The nurse should have and probably would have been sanctioned had she not obtained the written policy and read it to the cop, asked for the warrant, consent or probable cause and without being presented with one of them allowing access to a burn patient. The risk of venipuncture of and by itself on a reasonably healthy individual is indeed small. Thousands of addicts stand as testament to that. ICU burn patients fall under a well considered and enforced hospital policy for good reason. She did what she was required to do and as she was supposed to do it.

Had the cop tried to access the patient without following hospital protocol for burn patients the the hospital official closest to the situation should have and likely would have requested security remove him from the grounds.

I have little doubt that had Doc Rocket been there he could have simply provided a lot more time for the cop to think this through while he scrubbed, gowned and gloved all the while being counseled about what he was about to do. The thought of being held legally and personally responsibly for infecting a critically ill person during an unlawful search and seizure might well have dissuaded him.

Does the cop exhibit ANY tendencies associated with a person inclined to listen to a reasonable offer to defuse the situation?

MILES58...

Thanks for that thoughtful post, and your kind words about yours truly. As more information has extruded from this mess in Utah, the issues have become clearer and clearer. As I said i suspected on social media the day the video went viral, there was a lot more back story that has since come to light. In my meeting with my own hospital administrator yesterday I learned that this incident has been burning up the administrators' private discussion groups as well, which isn't much of a surprise. Much detail about the back story will not come out in public, it appears, at least not until/unless there is a public inquiry, and even then it may stay under wraps.

To speak to one of your points: first, the nurse would probably not face disciplinary action even if she had stood aside, for much the same reason as I explained in my post 2 days ago. She had other obligations that were higher and more pressing than providing security in this situation. Hospital security failed in their job here, although I'm not sure even they can be expected to do much, as non-sworn personnel, in the face of a sworn officer bent on an illegal search/seizure.

I appreciated denton's comment about his local hospital, where they have a police substation adjacent to to the ER. I have written about the appalling lack of real "security" in American emergency departments in my blog, as have other physicians. The situation is a real nightmare waiting to happen. The Utah incident is a bizarre and atypical illustration of just how vulnerable our hospitals are, and if something isn't done soon we are going to see a real tragedy take place, and sooner rather than later.

Back story? What's since come to light and what's this super secret back story you're referring to.

Cited from: http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/09/...-fired-from-his-part-time-paramedic-job/


"Payne was hired at Gold Cross as a full-time emergency medical technician in 1983, later becoming a paramedic, Moffitt said. He eventually became a police officer and continued on with the paramedic job part time.

Moffitt (who's the current President of Gold Cross) said he worked alongside Payne in the 1980s, sometimes in the same ambulance.
“I know him as well as any co-worker you spend 30 years with,” Moffitt said.

He called Payne’s behavior in the body camera footage ”uncharacteristic” of his former colleague. ”I’ve never seen anything like that from him, nor had any reason to believe that was something that was possible,” Moffitt said.

You are kicking Steelhead's azz for searchability.

Hospital public safety services that were present comprised of UOU sworn officers.

https://dps.utah.edu/police-services/

" The Patrol Division is made up of 27 full time sworn police officers and 1 reserve police officer. The full time personnel include
1 Lieutenant, 3 Sergeants and 23 Patrol Officers. As part of our responsibility patrol provides 1 officer 24 hours a day at the UMC
Emergency Department to provide a police presence and assist as needed"


https://dps.utah.edu/security-services/

" The security component of the University of Utah - Department of Public Safety is broken up into two division,
Hospital and Main Campus. Both Divisions are managed by a Lieutenant ".....

"The Campus Security Division works closely with the University Police to coordinate personal safety and property protection
throughout campus..."


Names and Titles of UOU public safety service personnel:

http://people.utah.edu/uWho/basic.hml?did=240


Wubbels, told The Associated Press on Friday that she was grateful for support from her supervisors and hospital staff
but disappointed she was left to defend herself with no help from university police.

“This cop bullied me. He bullied me to the utmost extreme, and nobody stood in his way. And that should have originally
been the job of security and the university police,” Wubbels said.

It's super secret squirrel stuff that regular folks can't understand that makes his theory make sense, even though it may not appear to make any sense.

The folks that continue to say "Oh, we know our cops, been around em for years, they'd *never* do anything like that", sound amazingly like the folks that say: Oh, we know our pitbull, been around em for years, they'd *never* do anything like that."

Hard to believe this was his first episode of being an a$$hole. I wonder how many cases he worked where the evidence he collected will be suspect to its legality.

What is it with senior LEOs in the twilight of their careers stepping on their dick...

If this was a fight the ref would have called it in favor of the nurse, pages ago.

he cant get the words out, but the words are..." Blue EGOS matter"

Strap on night again for you?

Having been a nursing administrator in the past, and having worked ER for 10 year. now as a Nurse Practitioner. I can tell you it is not uncommon for LEO to storm in and be much the same as the officer in question. They believe hippa and emtala does not apply to them. Unfortunately it does. . Of course known many very wonderful LEO who were much different also. I typically am very pro law enforcement. Not today though.

The nurse was in no way in the wrong. The hospital policy was absolutely correct and in accordance with updated laws. That's already been determined hasn't it? The policy should have references and case numbers to support itself. Ours do. The officer did not have any legal right or obligation to obtain this innocent mans blood, nor does he have the legal power given to him to over ride this mans constitutional rights. I believe what the officer did was a complete abuse of his power, and is actually called battery when he attacked her out of anger. That wasn't an arrest it was retaliation. They were just hoping he would pop positive for something cause otherwise they are getting sued and will have to pay for the whole hospitalization and all care related to it in the future. Think 7 digits cost.

Cop should be fired and face criminal charges.

As a nurse your first duty is to be a advocate for you patient and to protect them from harm. Anybody complaining about her should hope they don't end up in the same situation with a weaker nurse.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...se-was-wrong-but-the-law-is-complicated/

The truck driver was not under arrest.
Cop had no warrant and could not get one because he had no probable cause.
The driver being unconscious meant he could not give consent.
The nurse was right on ALL 3 reasons.
The guy that wrote that article just added a 4th reason that the cop was wrong and the nurse was right.

Some folks just can't bring themselves to accept the fact that cops, just like every other CITIZEN can, and do, engage in actions which are totally indefensible.

So...... they try shifting the blame, bringing irrelevant points, and all the other strategies usually employed by leftists.

..and the fifth reason, the hospital and the SLC PD had an official agreement/contract that they would follow the Utah law and the SC Ruling and not allow any blood to be drawn without a warrant, PC or consent.

Very good point!

Well, since you seem to be clearly very much up-to-date on the story, you've no doubt heard by now that this standoff had been going on for over 2 hours before the video starts. And since I'm sure you read my OP pretty carefully, you'll know that my big question as applies to this thread is the failure of leadership on the part of the hospital and the police agencies involved, so this 2-hour delay with no real persons of authority on the scene is a significant negative finding about this case. But you knew that, right?

No doubt you'll also have learned by now that the arresting cop seems to be a good-hearted guy who works extra hard both in LE and as an EMT, and he's apparently a real stickler for following orders from his superiors, not the kind of guy who takes matters into his own hands, and not the sort of guy one would normally think of as a jack-booted thug. So again, this highlights the glaring failure of his superior(s) to act appropriately, to exercise real leadership, which again speaks to the issues discussed in the OP. But you knew that, right?

No doubt you have already learned by now that there are at least 3 separate investigations into this incident, and at least one of these are looking at a longstanding history of conflict between police agencies in Salt Lake City with hospitals, and this particular hospital especially. The fact that these conflicts have been ongoing for YEARS in this locale and have yet to be corrected suggests that the failure of leadership in that hospital and those LEA's is endemic and may require Draconian measures to clean it up.You knew about that, too, right?

When I wrote my post Monday night none of the above details had made the news yet, at least not that I've heard. And when I met with my administrative group on Tuesday morning, this and other details were discussed that were not part of the public record. Some of those details have since come to light, and some (specific cases affecting patients from the past history of this hospital with LE in SLC) will never come out into public view because they are covered by HIPAA and EMTALA and other confidentiality laws that I am sworn not to violate.

So if by adhering to my ethical obligation to not violate HIPAA and EMTALA I have offended you, by alluding to "super secret" stuff that you have no right to know and I have no right to tell you, then carry on being offended.

But it seems you scamps have your teeth fastened down hard on the Bad Cops Are Always Bad narrative, and the Ol' Doc Is Always A Defender of Evil Cops narrative, despite the fact that I started this thread to try to stimulate a discussion to look critically at the situation more broadly and deeply, with a view to finding a way to prevent such insanity in the future. I'm not really surprised that you chaps are stuck at the elementary level, like the sheep in Animal Farm bleating "four legs good, two legs bad" without cease.

If you think the cop in this case was all bad all the time, evil incarnate, etc, you are a damned fool. If you think the nurse in this case was all good all the time, a faultless angel of mercy, etc, you are equally a damned fool.

I gleaned virtually all the useful information from this thread that I needed by about Page 6. I should have left the thread then, but a couple of folks PM'd me to ask me to address specific posts, which I did. As I stated in my post Monday night, I believe that the subtleties of this incident are a bit too complex for many here. I expect you folks will carry on as you please, and please do. But I have learned all I can from this thread, so good day to you. Carry on.

Yup, he screwed up. Bad. Fire him, charge him criminally, sue him and his supervisor for the Title 1983 violation, and order the entire PD, with emphasis on Command Staff, to attend current law training, make them sign that they full understand the laws.

Also, that PD needs a top-down review of personnel and policies. Start with firing the Chief, replacing him with an outsider who knows and understands Constitutional law, and hold his feet to the fire. Then, require all Command and Supervisory staff, all the way from the Chief down to the newest Sergeant and Clerk Supervisor to attend ethics training . NO exceptions!. Make them sign for that, too.

Once the Command and Supervisory staff have had their law & ethics training, make every person in the department attend and sign for the same training. Command and Supervisory staff MUST get this training first before any street level officers and civilian employees. I have first hand experience at what happens when only the grunts get ethics training and none of the Command staff do. It's disgusting, demoralizing, and destructive to the personnel and to the community.

THEN...make every supervisor and commander attend leadership training. Every new supervisor should get the same training before ever taking on that role. If you're promoted, you don't get to put on those stripes until you get the training.

For the citizens, this is going to cost money that most likely isn't in the budget, but it will be an expense that will pay out huge dividends with the way the citizenry are treated and the relationships between the police and the public.

Remember, the LE agency in your community is YOUR agency. YOU have the right and responsibility to have and keep the type LE agency you want. Bitching, moaning, and pissing about the LEO's in your area won't do a damned thing without YOUR pressure on YOUR LE agency.

It's a personal responsibility thing. You are personally responsible for changing things, not "someone else".

Off my soapbox now...

Ed

P.S. My comments about being personally responsible are not aimed at curdog4570. He is already responsible for pissing off enough politicians, lawyers, and cops.

It's a thankless job, but one for which I am uniquely- via xperience- qualified. 😀😀😀

The truck driver was not under arrest.
Cop had no warrant and could not get one because he had no probable cause.
The driver being unconscious meant he could not give consent.
The nurse was right on ALL 3 reasons.
The guy that wrote that article just added a 4th reason that the cop was wrong and the nurse was right.[/quote]

I would like to add something to this I have not seen mentioned here. The innocent truck driver is a CDL driver. Ant time a CDL driver is involved in an accident they will be drug tested. It is federal law, a CDL driver agrees to it and waves any rights when he signs his CDL. As a friend in law enforcement said elsewhere if a deer run int the side of your truck you will be tested. The officer was within his rights to request a test and did not need any of the requirements to listed above.


Now do I believe the nurse was right in denying at that moment I would have to say deficiently yes. The blood sample or urine sample could have waited without loss of integrity. Was the officer wrong in his response, your damned right he was. Has the department done the right thing, yes. Policies have changed and lessons learned. I seriously doubt the officer will wear a badge again. Lessons learned, time to move on.

Now this being the Campfire I expect to get roasted. Go ahead, I can handle the heat.

There was a situation in a Bountiful hospital (just north of Salt Lake City) that started similarly, but ended very differently.

Two North Salt Lake PD officers brought in a psych case, and completed the paperwork to turn the patient over to the hospital. Then they decided that they wanted a blood sample. The nurse told them that was not allowed, and the NSLPD officers became loud and unprofessional.

The difference was that the security guy on duty immediately interposed himself between the officers and the nurse. He explained to the officers that if they kept it up, they were going to jail. Then he kicked them out of the ER, and he made it stick.

Of course, this particular security officer is very protective of the hospital staff. He's the one who walks nurses to their car when there is a shift change at night.

One of my Grandaughters'" other Grandpa" is a retired WFPD officer who now works security at the local hospital. According to my Daughter, who works in Human Resources there,he has ordered cops out of the hospital on more than one occasion when they raised their voices to hospital employees.

I bet that story gives you wood every time you retell it. Do you picture yourself in the role of the security guard when you tell it?

Hi Scott, the SCOTUS threw out implied consent.
As another trucker pointed out it is the responsibility of his employer to obtain the blood test . There is no criminal penalty for a truck driver who refuses to submit a blood sample. They will just suspend his license. For the police to demand a blood sample they must arrest him, get a warrant or the driver must be able to actively give his consent.
In the link that Steve4102 posted it is explained the the reason the cop gave for getting the sample (to prove the drivers innocence) is not allowed under the law.
It is an illegal demand.

Thanks, new since I was a driver.

DFT

A few questions I had in my mind about the information the police had on the driver of the commercial driver and his rig.

1. Was it Enter or Intra State commerce.

2. Was license and health card up to date.

3.Was the vehicle inspection and daily inspection current.

4. Was log book up to date.

5. Was the vehicle overloaded.

It would seem to me if there was any discrepancies they would have obtained a warrant at the very beginning.

You're making the mistake of thinking these cops were reasonable people. Obviously they weren't.

None of that was relevant in this case.

Ed

Any discrepancy or violation has to be causal to the accident to be admissible as evidence.

This is a terrible legal analysis from a former federal judge turned law professor. The holding from the Supreme Court is clear that non-consensual blood draws require a warrant. As such, criminal "refusal" statutes are on their face unconstitutional and many have been voided as a result of the holding. Even if civil penalties for refusing are still permissible, getting warrantless blood draw under a such a statute would still invalidate the prosecution of any criminal case that would follow. So the default is that warrant is required for blood draw without consent. Period.

End he is further wrong about the rationale of the nurse...she was relying on the agreement in place between the hospital and the police agency...not the law.

By what informed authority or investigative evidence can you claim that the hospitals in question have poor leadership in place
that has contributed to long term conflicts with LE..?

This is a case of LE (both individual and chain of command) failing to honor the previously co-signed blood withdrawal agreement.
further, the blood draw law LE was trying to hustle the hospital with, became defunct in Utah 2007.

If you have any verifiable reported evidence concerning the history of those area hospitals being at fault, or unlawful, belligerent,
obstructive, or failing to honor agreements ,please present it.

The mere fact LE were required to conduct their own de-escalation training program, seems to acknowledge they may be the
cause of long term conflicts with hospitals.

" The Salt Lake City Council issued a statement at Tuesday’s formal meeting. Chairman Stan Penfold said that;
“all seven council members” shared the public’s concern about the incident.
“We stand united in our believe that it is unacceptable,” he said. “It was especially frustrating in light of
the police department has made recently on [de-escalation] training. This is a big step back on those efforts, which is disappointing.”


all the progress on de-escalation...??....so in other words Police Dept. had an identified major issue with escalating situations
involving its officers in the field.

Are 'blood withdrawal agreements' common in large cities?

When I need blood I:
A) Take individual to hospital (or follow)
B) Read DSMV426 and hope they refuse (normal arrest)
Or
C) Have a [bleep] warrant in hand for a 'serious' DWI that will cover multiple blood draws.

18 years.......only one issue with a nurse who simply didn't understand a warrant.

18 years and you've only had one problem. 30 years and Doc Rocket hasn't had any he couldn't talk his way out of. I wonder why that is?
What could the common denominator possibly be?

Looking at the cop's dashcam videos shows absolutely no causality on the part of the burn victim. He was in the far lane, minding his own bidness when some mother's wayward son crossed all those lanes and hit him head-on. Kinda hard to place any causality on him. Unless it's now an offense to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Wouldn't put it past the friggin' bureaucrats to put that one in the DOT regs.


Ed

Good Leadership...........

Possibly common sense, courtesy, and an understanding of the law?

There you go, letting the cat out of the bag! Now everyone will know the secret and we won't have anything to bitch about ten+ pages!

How dare you!

Ed

Youre right, Ed. As i said, anybody die?

Youd think a rancher was killed in his front yard over a bull in his driveway. Sheesh.

That's exactly it ed. According to DOT (and we can thank insurance comprise for it)

He is partly at fault for simply being there

Yeah...

but, but, but the cop was credentialed to take blood!

The agency where I used to work is 45 short if any of you want an easy job.

Is my NH certification any good on the TX coast ?

Then the hospital "security" should have taken him around back and opened his punkin' up so he could take some of his own blood.

Ed

Will I be able to arrest nurses down there?





















I couldn't help myself... :-(

Yup...If you can pass the test.

Are successful candidates able to draw blood on unconscious, happenstance citizens at will?

Really?

Free donuts?

Obviously not. They have 45 openings.

We don't draw blood. Ever. We know that blood will drawn regardless and subpoena the records. That's part of the problem...cops can't be expected to do everything.

[bleep]..........I guess it'll have to be TN!!
Laffin'!

Donuts slow my roll. I prefer kolaches.

I agree 100%, but what this means is that not only was the cop and the SLC PD in violation of the Constitution and a recent Supreme Court ruling, they were in violation of Utah law as well.

Perhaps it's already been mentioned, but one irony of the whole ordeal is that the truck driver involved is also a reserve police officer of the Rigby, Idaho police department, who publically thanked nurse Wubbel for standing up for the rights of their colleague. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ic-utah-nurse-for-defending-cop-patient. Had the arresting police officer or his supervisor known this at the time would their course of action been different? I wonder.

The biggest failure of the arresting officer and his immediate supervisor is the one or both of them, when presented with hospital policy, should have realized that that the situation was over their heads and it needed to be resolved somewhere further up the chain of command. Clearly the nurse involved was not the one responsible for impeding their investigation, it was the hospital's policy. So arresting her for stating hospital policy makes no sense. This serious lack of judgment is why they should be disciplined.

Me and Roger will vouch for you and you'll be good to go.